The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) was that at the time when the Defendant borrowed money from the complainants, the apartment was established on the apartment under the name of the Defendant, and thus, there was little real value of collateral, and the head office operated by the Defendant did not have any particular income due to the difficulties in business management, and the debt such as the loan was more than 63 million won.

In addition, the Defendant borrowed money to the complainant under the pretext of basic living expenses, such as “child education expenses, business funds, and credit card payment,” which reveals the insolvency of the Defendant.

In light of these circumstances, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case even if the defendant borrowed money from the complainant but did not have the intention or ability to complete the payment.

2. The lower court determined as follows based on the evidence duly admitted and examined: (a) the Defendant’s appraisal of the name was set up a collateral security right of KRW 210,00,000 in the D Apartment apartment located in Gwangju Mine-gu, the amount of which is equivalent to KRW 202,00,000 at the time of borrowing; (b) the principal of the above claim was KRW 175,000,000; (c) the Defendant was operating a restaurant located in the Gwangju Mine-gu, other than the above apartment at the time of borrowing; (d) the Defendant owned the one share of KRW 47,40,00 in the Plaintiff; (c) the Defendant had a claim for a loan of KRW 47,40,000 against J; (d) the Defendant applied for a personal rehabilitation from the Incheon District Court around May 2018, which was subsequent to the borrowing of this case; and (e) the Defendant had a dispute over the payment of child support from the Gwangju Family Court around KRW 200,5,000,00.